John Conyers hearing on the Downing Street Memo to be broadcast on KPFA
leansto...@democrat.com
John Conyers' Hearing on the Downing Street Memo
The John Conyers' Hearing on the 'Downing Street memo' has changed the
start and end time. The new time is from 2 PM to 6 PM EST.
Confirmed guests for our Pacifica special broadcast include:
* John ConyersCongressman John Conyers (Chair of the Hearing),
* Ray McGovern (CIA analyst, witness for Hearing),
* George Galloway, Member of Parliament/United Kingdom,
* Frances Boyle, University of Illinois Law Professor who has drawn
up Impeachment papers, and more.
Initially prevented from holding the Hearing on Capitol Hill by the
Republicans, Conyers was to hold it at the Democratic National
Committee Building in Washington, but now reports indicate the Hearing
may in fact happen on Capital Hill. Stay tuned!
Buck
Thanks for playing.
Buck
<leansto...@democrat.com> wrote in message
news:1118905162.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
<http://www.pacifica.org/programs/20050616_Downing_Street_Memo_Hearings_Spec
John Slade
I think we should send that link to Ronn Owens and Bill Wattenberg.
Maybe it will sink in that Bush lied and kept on lying to cover up the
old lies. Then he told more lies to cover up the lies he told to cover
up the old lies. Now I haven't heard Ronn for a while and last I heard
was he was still saying that nobody can show him where Bush lied.
BTW. The Downing Street Memo isn't as bad as the latest leaked
documents from Britain. Apparently they're more damaging than the
Downing Street Memo.
I was listening to Ray the other night and he said, "59 million
Americans voted for Bush and they can't find 3000 to join the military."
I wonder why the people in those "red states" aren't rushing to the
military to go fight in Iraq. We can tell they believe in the mission
there so much.(wink wink)
John
John Higdon
John Slade <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> I think we should send that link to Ronn Owens and Bill Wattenberg.
> Maybe it will sink in that Bush lied and kept on lying to cover up the
> old lies. Then he told more lies to cover up the lies he told to cover
> up the old lies. Now I haven't heard Ronn for a while and last I heard
> was he was still saying that nobody can show him where Bush lied.
George W. Bush will be removed from office in January of 2009. That
takes care of that, doesn't it? Are we going to hear an endless stream
of this until then??
> BTW. The Downing Street Memo isn't as bad as the latest leaked
> documents from Britain. Apparently they're more damaging than the
> Downing Street Memo.
Yawn. I can guarantee you that no one will re-elect GWB to the Office of
President again...so who are you preaching to?
> I was listening to Ray the other night and he said, "59 million
> Americans voted for Bush and they can't find 3000 to join the military."
> I wonder why the people in those "red states" aren't rushing to the
> military to go fight in Iraq. We can tell they believe in the mission
> there so much.(wink wink)
You have no clue regarding the military. Unfortunately, neither does Ray.
--
John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 | Sana Zay, CA |
leansto...@democrat.com
civil liberties, etc. since he will be busy covering his ass. It's a
good plan, but of course, the Democrats need to take back the house,
which is hard to do after the Texas redistricting yielded 4 new seats.
I see nothing wrong with John's statement regarding the popularity of
Shrub versus the difficultly to get recruits to die for Operation Iraqi
Liberation. These necons should offer up their children for the cause,
else freedom won't be on the march.
This LA Times link has the latest leaked papers:
<http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-britmemos15jun15,1,7947466.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=2&cset=true>
Regarding Shrub remaining in power, I have no doubts there are people
in the regime who would institute their version of Operation Northwoods
to give Shrub the oportunity of declaring marshall law and canceling
the election. These people are truly evil, right up there with the
Nazis. At least the Nazi gave us good cars and opera. All I got from
Shrub is a bill for the war, a loss of civil liberties, polution, new
uses for duct tape, cavity checks at the airport, and a cool color
scheme warning system.
John Higdon
"leansto...@democrat.com" <leansto...@democrat.com> wrote:
> If we impeach Shrub, he will have a hard time damaging the environment,
> civil liberties, etc. since he will be busy covering his ass. It's a
> good plan, but of course, the Democrats need to take back the house,
> which is hard to do after the Texas redistricting yielded 4 new seats.
What is the impeachable offense? ("Lying" doesn't cut it unless it is
under oath.)
> I see nothing wrong with John's statement regarding the popularity of
> Shrub versus the difficultly to get recruits to die for Operation Iraqi
> Liberation.
Except that it's nonsense. The #1 reason for low recruitment is the way
the military seems to ignore its contracts with servicemen. All the
political blather is just eyewash. Servicemen are not politicians.
> These necons should offer up their children for the cause,
> else freedom won't be on the march.
Many have. Many of those children have jumped at the chance to to.
> Regarding Shrub remaining in power,
He will. Dinner at The Cats for you and nine of your friends is on the
line. Deal? Needless to say, I expect the same if I'm right. When Bush
hands over the keys to the White House in January, 2009, let me know whe
you are going to pony up.
> I have no doubts there are people
> in the regime who would institute their version of Operation Northwoods
> to give Shrub the oportunity of declaring marshall law and canceling
> the election.
Marshall law where? In the US? Ain't gonna happen. Same bet as above.
> These people are truly evil, right up there with the
> Nazis. At least the Nazi gave us good cars and opera. All I got from
> Shrub is a bill for the war, a loss of civil liberties, polution, new
> uses for duct tape, cavity checks at the airport, and a cool color
> scheme warning system.
I'm glad you are speaking for yourself. I'm doing better than I've done
in decades. I'm turning away more business than any other time in my
life. As far as inconvenience goes, I don't even go through the metal
detector at airports!
In truth, neither your painful suffering nor my good fortune are the
result of Bush, and I hope you are intelligent enough to realize that.
Steven Dinius
didn't want you to know for about THAT LONG, and exclaim,
"Well ALLLRIGHT MAN! You heard it! We better get that done NOW Heck yeah,
we're just gonna go and do that Right Now....OK, so see you around we're
gonna do that"
(around the corner) "Hey, man, what the hell was that, cause I'm not sure I
wanna know" "EH, political stuff, you don't wanna know...hey, let's go get
some beers!"
<leansto...@democrat.com> wrote in message
news:1119136649....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Steven Dinius
been since 1984 (my 18th birthday was the first time I voted) and I don't
quite follow. Why are we trying to impeach somebody who isn't named Nixon or
Clinton from some ragtag agency that doesn't matter and costs barrels of
money every time they stub a toe? Is John Conyers still in office? Will the
PBS Newshour need to find new sponsors? Will john McLoughlin's panel stop
being so freakin serious all the time, it's only a debate show?
And what about Naomi? (oops, "The Electric Company" left PBS years ago...but
it had Morgan Freeman as Easy Reader and Irene Cara was in the Short Circus)
Just to prove I'm not an average groupie and vote my conscience, I censored
the other group. Crossposting causes wars too.
Steven Dinius
to set down to see if I can fix my Pioneer SX-6000 to go with the QX-8000
and maybe have ALL 5.1 channels of DVD audio from 1972 technology...
Tom Betz
> What is the impeachable offense? ("Lying" doesn't cut it unless
> it is under oath.)
For starters, 18 USC 1001, making false statements to Congress.
From <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=1001>
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly
and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the
same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both.
Under oath or not, it's a felony.
--
George Bush's War of Choice on Iraq is a totally unnecessary war.
Every life lost, every limb lost, every disfigurement, every
disability caused there is more blood on George W. Bush's hands,
and on the hands of everyone who voted for George W. Bush.
John Higdon
Tom Betz <spamme...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Quoth John Higdon <fraud-and...@verislimesucks.com> in
> news:fraud-and-spam-trap-...@equine.announcetech.com:
>
> > What is the impeachable offense? ("Lying" doesn't cut it unless
> > it is under oath.)
>
> For starters, 18 USC 1001, making false statements to Congress.
>
> From <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=1001>
>
> (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
> matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
> judicial branch of the Government of the United States,
> knowingly and willfully -
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
Aye, there's the rub. Not easy to prove.
> Under oath or not, it's a felony.
And as I would expect, except for the zealots here, I haven't heard a
whisper of anyone being nuts enough to go to step one of impeachment.
Steven Dinius
you can't nail 'em with a hammer, try something TACK-Y.
"John Higdon" <fraud-and...@verislimesucks.com> wrote in message
news:fraud-and-spam-trap-...@equine.announcetech.com...
Fred Wesner
Steven Dinius wrote:
Sheesh, answering your OWN posts again. Steven, you need psychiatric
help ASAP. For info for the regulars, I live In San Jose, have read
this NG for years, have been in broadcasting support for years but I
rarely post, just check here for information on what's up.
I also frequently read rec.antiques.radio+phono and this person, "Steven
Dinius" has made himself a menace there for the last several years.
He has about as much (shall I say more) intelligence as Chucky, which is
not saying much. I'm fed up with seeing this crap and will invoke kill
files, I suppose, but I would like to see JH carve a new assholse in
Steven. Up to it John?
Fred
John Higdon
Fred Wesner <fwe...@removethis.pacbell.net.removethistoo> wrote:
> I also frequently read rec.antiques.radio+phono and this person, "Steven
> Dinius" has made himself a menace there for the last several years.
> He has about as much (shall I say more) intelligence as Chucky, which is
> not saying much. I'm fed up with seeing this crap and will invoke kill
> files, I suppose, but I would like to see JH carve a new assholse in
> Steven. Up to it John?
There's not enough there to engage. It just seems like an endless stream
of non-sequiturs. It's as though a subroutine of the Chuckie application
is running as a detached child process, but without any control or
structure.
I've considered kill files myself, although I use them VERY sparingly.
Fred Wesner
John Higdon wrote:
> In article <tD5te.4600$Pa5....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> Fred Wesner <fwe...@removethis.pacbell.net.removethistoo> wrote:
>
>
>>I also frequently read rec.antiques.radio+phono and this person, "Steven
>>Dinius" has made himself a menace there for the last several years.
>>He has about as much (shall I say more) intelligence as Chucky, which is
>>not saying much. I'm fed up with seeing this crap and will invoke kill
>>files, I suppose, but I would like to see JH carve a new assholse in
>>Steven. Up to it John?
>
>
> There's not enough there to engage. It just seems like an endless stream
> of non-sequiturs. It's as though a subroutine of the Chuckie application
> is running as a detached child process, but without any control or
> structure.
>
> I've considered kill files myself, although I use them VERY sparingly.
>
John, you,'re right. We shouldnt waste our time on this. I'll killfile
him in yet another group.
Fred
leansto...@democrat.com
John Higdon wrote:
> In article <1119136649....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> "leansto...@democrat.com" <leansto...@democrat.com> wrote:
>
> > If we impeach Shrub, he will have a hard time damaging the environment,
> > civil liberties, etc. since he will be busy covering his ass. It's a
> > good plan, but of course, the Democrats need to take back the house,
> > which is hard to do after the Texas redistricting yielded 4 new seats.
>
> What is the impeachable offense? ("Lying" doesn't cut it unless it is
> under oath.)
>
> > I see nothing wrong with John's statement regarding the popularity of
> > Shrub versus the difficultly to get recruits to die for Operation Iraqi
> > Liberation.
>
> Except that it's nonsense. The #1 reason for low recruitment is the way
> the military seems to ignore its contracts with servicemen. All the
> political blather is just eyewash. Servicemen are not politicians.
Your average high school kid doesn't think that far ahead. Rather, they
are worried about being blown up by a RPG or IED.
>
> > These necons should offer up their children for the cause,
> > else freedom won't be on the march.
>
> Many have. Many of those children have jumped at the chance to to.
>
Evidence?
> > Regarding Shrub remaining in power,
>
> He will. Dinner at The Cats for you and nine of your friends is on the
> line. Deal? Needless to say, I expect the same if I'm right. When Bush
> hands over the keys to the White House in January, 2009, let me know whe
> you are going to pony up.
I'm saying it is a possibility that these evildoers will try to hang
onto power. Not a certainty.
>
> > I have no doubts there are people
> > in the regime who would institute their version of Operation Northwoods
> > to give Shrub the oportunity of declaring marshall law and canceling
> > the election.
>
> Marshall law where? In the US? Ain't gonna happen. Same bet as above.
Yes, and we never rounded up the Japanese and put them in interment
camps.
>
> > These people are truly evil, right up there with the
> > Nazis. At least the Nazi gave us good cars and opera. All I got from
> > Shrub is a bill for the war, a loss of civil liberties, polution, new
> > uses for duct tape, cavity checks at the airport, and a cool color
> > scheme warning system.
>
> I'm glad you are speaking for yourself. I'm doing better than I've done
> in decades. I'm turning away more business than any other time in my
> life. As far as inconvenience goes, I don't even go through the metal
> detector at airports!
Did I mention money? There are things more important than money, such
as clean air, freedom, etc. You may choose to suck down mega quantities
of the kool aid, but I rather not surrender to the dark side.
John Higdon
"leansto...@democrat.com" <leansto...@democrat.com> wrote:
> Your average high school kid doesn't think that far ahead. Rather, they
> are worried about being blown up by a RPG or IED.
Nonetheless, that is the reality. I'm surrounded by people who are quite
close to the situation.
> > Many have. Many of those children have jumped at the chance to to.
> >
>
> Evidence?
Personal knowledge.
> I'm saying it is a possibility that these evildoers will try to hang
> onto power. Not a certainty.
An earthquake might dump us into the ocean tomorrow.
> > Marshall law where? In the US? Ain't gonna happen. Same bet as above.
>
> Yes, and we never rounded up the Japanese and put them in interment
> camps.
Indeed...during a Democratic administration, at that. But...that was
then; this is now.
> > I'm glad you are speaking for yourself. I'm doing better than I've done
> > in decades. I'm turning away more business than any other time in my
> > life. As far as inconvenience goes, I don't even go through the metal
> > detector at airports!
>
> Did I mention money? There are things more important than money, such
> as clean air, freedom, etc. You may choose to suck down mega quantities
> of the kool aid, but I rather not surrender to the dark side.
Did I mention money? The air is cleaner now than it was when I was in
high school. On this forum alone, I have more ability to speak my mind
than ever before in my life. What freedom do I lack today that I had
fifty years ago? I think you are a little obsessed with your insipid and
trite "KoolAid" analogy. Truth is, there is far less real political
strife in this country today than there was when I was in school.
Buildings burned down then. Detroit burned. LA burned. Gimme a break!
I think your problem is that there isn't enough going on to keep you
entertained so you have to manufacture non-issues.
Steven Dinius
Thanks, Fred for finding about 3 days of my posts in RAR+P and childishly
adding "Go away" like a 3 year-old pitching a fit also. You are persistant
if ultimately futile. You were being ignored by about the 5th reply. Please
regain some proper decorum, might you?
"Fred Wesner" <fwe...@removethis.pacbell.net.removethistoo> wrote in
message news:b97te.4440$NU5...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Lee Amon
news:fraud-and-spam-trap-...@equine.announcetech.com...
> What is the impeachable offense? ("Lying" doesn't cut it unless it is
> under oath.)
>
The constitution is intentionally vague about what constitutes "high crimes
and misdemeanors". Perjury is not mentioned anywhere. Andrew Johnson was
impeached, no one said that he committed perjury. Richard Nixon would have
been impeached. No one said that he committed perjury.
All of which said, as a practical matter, I don't think Bush will be
impeached. Not with a Republican majority in both houses. Still, I for one
think it is important to keep talking about this issue for several reasons.
1. Because American troops are dying and having their body parts blown off
because of a lie. Had Bush not lied about the "imminent danger" and
"immediate threat" that Saddam supposedly posed (but didn't) - had he not
consistently linked Saddam to 9/11 (which was also a lie) we would not be in
Iraq
2. This action is draining both our military force and our treasury, making
this country (in the long term) less secure and less prosperous. John, your
financial situation may be better then ever, and I am happy for you, but
some of us care about the next generation, and we think these actions make
really hurt the country.
3. The war in Iraq is training a whole generation of terrorists, who have
returned to countries like Morocco, Turkey, and Egypt, and will soon be
showing us what they learned (reported by the NY Times)
So, while we may not be able to actually impeach Bush, we choose to continue
opposing him. We choose to point out the hypocrisy of those who support the
war, but oppose higher taxes so that we can pay for amour for our troops,
and are not either signing up themselves, or urging everyone they know to
sign up. I , for one count Ronn Owens high on this list of hypocrites
John Higdon
"Lee Amon" <Lee...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 1. Because American troops are dying and having their body parts blown off
> because of a lie. Had Bush not lied about the "imminent danger" and
> "immediate threat" that Saddam supposedly posed (but didn't) - had he not
> consistently linked Saddam to 9/11 (which was also a lie) we would not be in
> Iraq
You mean like Vietnam? Korea? Countless excursions before and after?
> 2. This action is draining both our military force and our treasury, making
> this country (in the long term) less secure and less prosperous. John, your
> financial situation may be better then ever, and I am happy for you, but
> some of us care about the next generation, and we think these actions make
> really hurt the country.
That's nebulous clap trap. How better to care about YOUR next generation
than to not be a burden to them and have your twilight years handled?
I'm not enthusiastic about this or any other war, but I've got enough
years under my belt to know that war is not any sort of unusual
condition for this or any other country. It is factored into the
economic mix just like everything else.
Our energy is better spent (unless we happen to be politicians) making
sure our own lives are in order and that we maximize our own situations.
No one else is going to do it for us.
> 3. The war in Iraq is training a whole generation of terrorists, who have
> returned to countries like Morocco, Turkey, and Egypt, and will soon be
> showing us what they learned (reported by the NY Times)
"The War" is causing that? I don't think so. As 9/11 demonstrated, that
is going on with or without the Iraq war.
> So, while we may not be able to actually impeach Bush, we choose to continue
> opposing him. We choose to point out the hypocrisy of those who support the
> war, but oppose higher taxes so that we can pay for amour for our troops,
> and are not either signing up themselves, or urging everyone they know to
> sign up. I , for one count Ronn Owens high on this list of hypocrites
Fine. Just keep listening.
Lee Amon
"John Higdon" <fraud-and...@verislimesucks.com> wrote in message
news:fraud-and-spam-trap-...@equine.announcetech.com...
>
> That's nebulous clap trap. How better to care about YOUR next generation
> than to not be a burden to them and have your twilight years handled?
I'm doing that. But why are the two things mutually exclusive? Are you
saying that it is impossible to work for your own economic welfare and for
betterment of society at the same time? I reject that notion
> I'm not enthusiastic about this or any other war, but I've got enough
> years under my belt to know that war is not any sort of unusual
> condition for this or any other country. It is factored into the
> economic mix just like everything else.
>
At one time slavery was "factored in", does that make it right? At one
time, homosexuals got beaten up because they were homosexuals, and that was
"factored in". Did that make it right? Every positive change came about
because some group of people said that something that had just been "how it
is", is not acceptable.
The fact that Johnson lied us into Vietnam does NOT make it OK for Bush to
lie us into IRAQ.
>
>> 3. The war in Iraq is training a whole generation of terrorists, who have
>> returned to countries like Morocco, Turkey, and Egypt, and will soon be
>> showing us what they learned (reported by the NY Times)
>
> "The War" is causing that? I don't think so. As 9/11 demonstrated, that
> is going on with or without the Iraq war.
Didn't cause it, but is accellerating it. Or at least (according to the
Times) the CIA thinks so.
. I , for one count Ronn Owens high on this list of hypocrites
>
> Fine. Just keep listening.
>
I listen a lot less than I used to.
bambi
And all this has WHAT to do with bay area broadcasting?
I just want ONE PLACE where I don't have to hear PARTY POLITICS
and the related BULLSHIT that goes with those discussions. Please
take it elsewhere.
John Higdon
"Lee Amon" <Lee...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> I'm doing that. But why are the two things mutually exclusive? Are you
> saying that it is impossible to work for your own economic welfare and for
> betterment of society at the same time? I reject that notion
You can do whatever you want. I just find that taking care of myself and
making sure my affairs are in order constitute a full-time job. Saving
The World is above my pay grade and beyond my capacity. If you want to
credit yourself with Saving The World, more power to you.
> At one time slavery was "factored in", does that make it right? At one
> time, homosexuals got beaten up because they were homosexuals, and that was
> "factored in". Did that make it right? Every positive change came about
> because some group of people said that something that had just been "how it
> is", is not acceptable.
That's a very poor argument. We're not talking about any of those
issues. I could give you a list of weak analogies that would fill a hard
drive...and it would prove just as much: nothing.
> The fact that Johnson lied us into Vietnam does NOT make it OK for Bush to
> lie us into IRAQ.
"OK" is a value judgment. I wasn't making that point.
> Didn't cause it, but is accellerating it. Or at least (according to the
> Times) the CIA thinks so.
Everyone has his opinion.
> I listen a lot less than I used to.
Pity.
John Higdon
bambi <ba...@calmail.net> wrote:
But posting in the political groups takes skill and knowledge, something
conspicuously absent in the political discussions here. Politically,
this is Amateurland; such participants here would be eaten alive in
adult discussion groups. This is a much more comfortable sandbox.
leansto...@democrat.com
> > I'm glad you are speaking for yourself. I'm doing better than I've done
> > in decades. I'm turning away more business than any other time in my
> > life.
To quote John Higdon again:
Did I mention money?
Is this an early sign of dimentia? Very soon, Mr. Higdon won't remember
which side of the soldering iron to grab.
John Higdon
"leansto...@democrat.com" <leansto...@democrat.com> wrote:
Well, did I mention money? I talked about business being good. That is a
Good Thing for me because I enjoy working for its own sake. Is that a
foreign concept to you?
Again, I don't see the word "money" up there. I'm happy to have you
point it out to me.
John Higdon
"leansto...@democrat.com" <leansto...@democrat.com> wrote:
>To quote John Higdon:
>> > I'm glad you are speaking for yourself. I'm doing better than I've done
>> > in decades. I'm turning away more business than any other time in my
>> > life.
So you really CAN quote the post to which you are referring when it suits
your purposes, eh?
Buck
"Lee Amon" <Lee...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:mBhte.62$N22...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
I believe "amour" would be a private matter.
thanks for playing.
Buck
John Higdon
"Buck" <Bu...@Buckarooville.cowtown.net> wrote:
> I believe "amour" would be a private matter.
I understand that we're probably paying more for amour than we are for
armor.
leansto...@democrat.com
John Higdon
"leansto...@democrat.com" <leansto...@democrat.com> wrote:
> Would business be good if you were making no money at all?
Maybe. I don't consider the two related. Business is what you do to
accomplish something. Money is what you live on. Sometimes the two are
related; sometimes not. I've had it both ways.
We're getting a bit far afield here. My point was simply that my world
isn't falling apart because GWB is in the White House.
I'm not sure what your point is.
John Higdon
"leansto...@democrat.com" <leansto...@democrat.com> wrote:
>Would business be good if you were making no money at all?
Do you base accomplishment on how much money is involved? Is that your way
of keeping score?
leansto...@democrat.com
John Higdon
"leansto...@democrat.com" <leansto...@democrat.com> wrote:
> Oh pa-lese. You screwed up. Take your whoppin' like a man.
I'm sorry. Could you supply a particle of context for that comment?
--
chuck kennedy
statute, and legal dictionaries define those terms.
"Knowingly" usually means "knew or should have known". If evidence
shows that he was told the correct facts and he stated them
differently, even thinking he wasn't lying, he lied knowingly because
he should have known they were lies.
The standard for "willfully" is even easier. A willful act is not
accidental. Bumping into a light switch and causing the lights to go
off is not a willful act. A slip of the tongue is not a willful act.
Making a statement that is written, prepared, projected on a PrompTer,
published on the white house web site, and distributed to the press is
a willful act. Intent to violate the law does not come into play. All
that matters is whether or not the act that did violate the law
(addressing Congress) was done intentionally or not.
< And as I would expect, except for the zealots here, I haven't heard a
< whisper of anyone being nuts enough to go to step one of impeachment.
Step one of impeachment will not begin under a Republican congress.
There won't even be a congressional investigation because there is not
a patriot left in the republican party.
I'd love to have dinner at The Cats, but I'm not about to take the bet.
leansto...@democrat.com
Follow the thread. You start a rant about money. I say money isn't the
issue. Then you say you never mentioned money. Really, this isn't
rocket science.
Buck
Sellani, was crowing about how Mr. Clinton had "fattened my wallet".
Why bother with this little snake?
Buck
"John Higdon" <fraud-and...@verislimesucks.com> wrote in message
news:fraud-and-spam-trap-...@equine.announcetech.com...
John Higdon
"leansto...@democrat.com" <leansto...@democrat.com> wrote:
> Follow the thread. You start a rant about money. I say money isn't the
> issue. Then you say you never mentioned money. Really, this isn't
> rocket science.
Learn how to read for content. Google won't help you there. That's a
skill you should have acquired in grammar school.
John Higdon
"Buck" <Bu...@Buckarooville.cowtown.net> wrote:
> I remember when your correspondent, under his real identity, Gary A.
> Sellani, was crowing about how Mr. Clinton had "fattened my wallet".
>
> Why bother with this little snake?;
Snakes are entertaining until they get down below the level of Chuckie.
Mr. Leans is skating on the edge.